2024 (3) TMI 805 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

NCLAT clarifies jurisdiction to condone delay in appeals beyond 30-day limitation under Rule 14

Chanderpati Versus Soni Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Anil Chopra Versus Soni Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Manan Chopra Versus Soni Realtors Pvt. Ltd., S.E. Investments Ltd. Versus Soni Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Rakhi Thakreja&Ors Versus Soni Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Somesh Arora & Anr. Versus Soni Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Through Resolution Professional, Sukhjinder Singh & Anr. Versus Soni Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Amit Garg Versus Manoj Kulshrestha& Anr., Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd Versus Manoj Kulshrestha Resolution Professional Soni Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Sanjay Kumar Bansal Versus Shri Manoj Kulshreshta & Ors., Sanjay Kumar Bansal Versus Soni Realtors Pvt. Ltd. &Ors., Rambir Versus Soni Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. And Sanjay Goyal & Anr. Versus Soni Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

The NCLAT Principal Bench addressed maintainability of appeals filed beyond the prescribed 30-day limitation period. The impugned order dated 10.06.2022 ... Maintainability of appeal - time limitation - impugned order was passed on 10.06.2022 and the period of 30 days prescribed for filing the appeal had expired on 10.07.2022 and a further period of 15 days had also expired on 25.07.2022 but these appeals have been filed without annexing the certified copy of the impugned order and the certified copies of the impugned order were applied much after the expiry of period of 45 days - HELD THAT:- It has been found from the resume of the facts that four appeals have been filed within a period of 30 days, six appeals have been filed within the extended period of 15 days alongwith the application for condonation of delay which are yet to be decided and all these ten appeals have been filed with applications for seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order whereas three appeals have been filed without seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order which can be granted under Rule 14 of the Rules. In all these appeals, the certified copies have been obtained after the expiry of 30 days/45 days but the fact remains that the application for seeking exemption is yet to be disposed of and this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to grant the exemption for the compliance of the Rules though on a sufficient cause shown in an appropriate application filed by the Appellant. Similarly, six appeals have been filed beyond the period of 30 days but within 45 days and the application for condonation of delay has not yet been decided. Supposing, the application for condonation of delay is allowed then the appeals shall be deemed to have been filed within the period of limitation and if the application is dismissed then the matter would be over. In so far as the remaining three appeals are concerned, these appeals have been filed without any application for seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order whereas Rule 14 clearly lays down that exemption can be granted if an application is moved in that behalf and by assigning a sufficient cause to render substantial justice. Appeal disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of appeals due to delay in filing and absence of certified copies.2. Applicability of Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.3. Interpretation of procedural rules for filing appeals under the Code.Summary:Issue 1: Maintainability of Appeals Due to Delay in Filing and Absence of Certified CopiesThe primary objection raised by the Respondent (RP) was regarding the maintainability of the appeals based on the delay in filing and the absence of certified copies of the impugned order. The RP argued that since the impugned order was passed on 10.06.2022, the 30-day period for filing the appeal expired on 10.07.2022, and the further 15-day period expired on 25.07.2022. Many appeals were filed without annexing the certified copy of the impugned order, and the certified copies were applied for much after the expiry of the 45-day period, rendering the appeals non-maintainable.Issue 2: Applicability of Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) mandates that appeals must be filed within 30 days of the order, with a possible extension of 15 days for sufficient cause. The Tribunal emphasized that the limitation period starts from the date of the order's pronouncement and not from when the order is made available. The Tribunal also highlighted the necessity of filing a certified copy of the order with the appeal as per Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016.Issue 3: Interpretation of Procedural Rules for Filing Appeals Under the CodeThe Tribunal noted that Rule 14 of the NCLAT Rules allows for exemption from compliance with procedural requirements on showing sufficient cause. It was observed that some appeals were filed within the prescribed period of 30 days, some within the extended period of 15 days, and some beyond the 45-day period. The Tribunal allowed applications for exemption from filing certified copies in several appeals, directing the appellants to file the certified copies within 30 days from the date of the order. However, three appeals were dismissed for not filing any application for exemption from filing certified copies.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the appeals filed within the prescribed period of 30 days or the extended period of 15 days, accompanied by applications for exemption from filing certified copies, were maintainable. However, appeals filed without any application for exemption were dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements while also recognizing the need to ensure substantial justice.